Sorry to disappoint you or anyone else. (Yes, I read your “I’m not asking this rhetorically, as I if I expect a “No” answer.” attempt at disclaimer.) Obviously, entire books have been written on the meaning of the word “willed”, but I’ll cut to the chase and say that I have no problems with saying YES. (Job 1:21 comes to mind. Among others.)
I’m not going to tackle such a huge topic in this casual forum post. Plus, I’m disappointed to be forced to notice that you’ve been baiting me and baiting others with a series of insults across a series of threads on this site. That’s not what I came here for—and that is why this is the last time I will engage you. I say that not as some sort of insult aimed at scoring some sort of points against you, but because of the fact that when I allow myself to be drawn into such debates, I’m concerned that I may fail to display consistently a Christ-like behavior. So THAT is the reason why this is the last time I will “take the bait” you keep deploying.
When you say “I have the impression that your picture of evolutionary theory is not current”, I could respond in kind and say that your ignorance of current philosophy scholarship on the non-problem which is generally known as the alleged “theodicy problem” suggests to me that “your picture” of that scholarship “is not current.” But I don’t think that trading insults about each others deficiencies, real or imagined, is what people come here to read.
You are welcomed to praise God or not for whatever you wish. I simply stated that I’m impressed by God’s omniscience and omnipotence as expressed in the evolutionary processes he created. If you are angry at God for creating a universe where malaria and all sorts of other suffering occurs, your problem isn’t with me. You need to take it up with God. I spent plenty of time in seminary and post-grad work weighing such theological tensions. I spent many years on these issues. But I can’t solve those tensions for you. Meanwhile, I have no such complaints against God.
I could just as easily make your types of observations about the small deity of various types of evolution deniers because they insist on interpretations of the Bible which force the Bible into unnecessary conflict with what we so clearly observe in God’s creation. Yet, I have no doubt that in their minds, their worship is every bit as sincere as mine. Yes, there are venues where identifying those logic failures may be warranted. But I do try to choose them carefully. And graciously if at all possible.
I’ve not been here for long but I’m seeing patterns. Especially with some angry individuals. Unfortunately, I find myself being drawn into those conflicts. I’m not comfortable with that. For that reason, I’m going to restrict myself to reading. And not much posting. So you will have to find someone else to bait. I’m taking a read-only sabbatical here.
People knowledgeable about fertility know full well there is no clean line between so-called Micro and Macro evolutionary categories.
For example, Lions and Tigers are typically seen as very different animals… or Polar Bears and Brown Bears. But Lions and Tigers are known to be able to produce fertile cross-breed offspring. And Polar Bear genetic studies show that Brown Bears are a significant presence in Polar Bear ancestry.
The LIGER, offspring of a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). Ironically, the fertility rates of inter-breeding lion/tiger cats … or Polar/Brown bears … are in some cases HIGHER than the fertility rates of some individuals of the very same species or breed.
Sometimes members of the very same gene pool are at extreme ends of chromosomal gradients … making it almost impossible for 2 specific individuals to have fertile offspring.
In a fluid gene pool, sporadic parings of sexually incompatible are not catastrophic … nor do these parings lead to any new “kinds”. But on the slippery slope of infertility …once parings become associated with geographic separation … or CULTURAL separation (in birds, females can become enthralled with a new song developed by a pocket of males) … or in many orders and species, males are drawn to women with highly feminized features … the possibility of a sub-group becoming DETACHED from the main gene pool varies … and can inevitably lead to the development of new “Kinds”.
How would you define species? If breeding or infertility is not the means by which species is defined, what is? Discussions on what biologists and related discipline understand as species have occurred from before Darwin to very recent papers. Are you able to shed light on this difficult subject?
The existence of malaria and various parasites is a theological problem for Christians like me, regardless of the mechanism of creation–YEC, OEC, ID, evolution, it doesn’t matter. If you are intending to raise the problem of theodicy as a new or separate issue, then it would be good to start another discussion thread by the mechanism that BioLogos provides. If it is primarily related to the discussion of speciation (or not), perhaps you could elucidate more.
Your question is very good, and it deserves a thoughtful, heartfelt response. I’m just wondering where the discussion should take place.
Please note that when I said “Christians like me,” I was not intending to demarcate you as inside or outside the Christian faith community. I simply haven’t read enough of your comments to know where your faith commitments lie.
These are my words… but are based on the biological and genetic basis of of the fertility/infertility gradient. While I fully expect Creationists to whine a bit about ALL BIG CATS are one kind … and ALL BEARS are another kind … how exactly do Creationists think anyone can live along enough to see a life form TRANSFORM from one kind to another? That’s a rather silly objection.
The gradient of KINDS is linked to the gradient of fertility. When mammals began to spend more and more time in the ocean shallows… and then venture ever further into the deep … exactly where does one draw the one of KIND?: when does a mammal like a hippo become more like a mammal like an OTTER?
… .and from an otter-like animal to a Seal like KIND? And then eventually a WHALE kind?
The KIND we call whales demonstrates genetic similarities to land-based animals that would never be otherwise expected. There are MANY MANY transformations of KINDS we see in the story of evolution:
Amphibians to Reptiles.
Reptiles to Birds.
And so forth …
NO need to lecture me about KINDS, Eddie. I am well aware of the Creationist cherry picking for why the concept of “kind” becomes so elastic that it becomes useless to discuss it with Creationists.
Hi GJDS - I agree with your concern (and that of @Eddie) that the journalist was quite sloppy in writing his headline. The scientific team that wrote the papers was not guilty of that infraction, thankfully.
Not being a biologist, my analysis of their papers could be wrong. With that disclaimer: my understanding is that they measured C4-hybrid viability based on fertility in lab conditions, as compared to non-hybrid controls from various Madeira sub-populations. I suspect it would be extremely difficult and error-prone, and perhaps even ethically problematic, to breed c4-hybrids in a lab and then release them into the wild in an attempt to gain a more accurate measure of viability. Could the C4-hybrids be more or less fit in ways other than fertility, compared to the extant sub-populations? Certainly. The assumption that the C4 hybrids are probably similar to the Madeira sub-populations in measures of fitness other than fertility doesn’t strike me as outlandish, though.
I would love to hear an informed opinion from a professional biologist on this in-depth line of inquiry you raised, GJDS. It’s a good one. For that matter, I’m quite certain you could understand the original papers far better than I if you cared to examine them, even though your field of expertise is a different scientific discipline.
I hesitate to put forward professional opinions outside of my area of expertise - as I have said before, I participate on this site mainly because of the wide-ranging views that may impact on Christian theology. I am confident bio-scientists follow best practices, and I have said before, that when I consider the complicated nature of fundamental questions in biology, I am just so happy that I did not choose that field (I find such questions intimidating)- and more power to those who make progress in the bio-sciences.
Since GENETIC CONFIGURATION is the ultimate determinant in what makes an Otter different from a Whale - - as WELL as what makes a Otter different from a Whale - - I am not impressed by attempts to carve a difference between MICRO and MACRO evolution. Or, @Eddie, are you going to argue that Whales and Seals are THE SAME KIND?
I’m quite sure there are MULTIPLE factors and vectors that promote changes in gene pool populations. But I strongly doubt there is any reliable way to ultimately distinguish between a so-called Macro Evolution change that has occurred over 200,000 years and a so-called Micro Evolution change that has had 400,000 years to develop.
This strikes me as a PSEUDO distinction with rhetorical benefits - - mostly exploited by Creationists.
The 2000 article [at bottom] has been superceded by this more recent one, which discusses newly formed “races” of mice, instead of species… [Below is the abstract.]
[ABSTRACT]
Chromosomal phylogeny of Robertsonian races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira: testing between alternative mutational processes.
Genet Res 2005 Dec 23;86(3):171-83. Epub 2005 Nov 23.
Janice Britton-Davidian, Josette Catalan, Maria da Graça Ramalhinho, Jean-Christophe Auffray, Ana Claudia Nunes, Elodie Gazave, Jeremy B Searle, Maria da Luz Mathias
Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, UMR 5554, Laboratoire Génétique et Environnement, CC65, Université Montpellier II, France. britton@isem.univ-montp2.fr
The ancestral karyotype of the house mouse (Mus musculus) consists of 40 acrocentric chromosomes, but numerous races exist within the domesticus subspecies characterized by different metacentric chromosomes formed by the joining at the centromere of two acrocentrics. An exemplary case is present on the island of Madeira where six highly divergent chromosomal races have accumulated different combinations of 20 metacentrics in 500-1000 years. Chromosomal cladistic phylogenies were performed to test the relative performance of Robertsonian (Rb) fusions, Rb fissions and whole-arm reciprocal translocations (WARTs) in resolving relationships between the chromosomal races.]
[[END OF ABSTRACT]]
The simplest is the ability to produce fertile hybrid offspring, not just hybrid offspring. This has a lot to do with the inversions and translocations George mentioned. And there’s also a lot of math involved in genetics and population genetics, which should please you.
I think that this is the best “absolute” definition. Though this would mean some creatures that we consider different species are in fact just different races or breeds.
Ligers, the offspring of Lions and Tigers? Not Sterile !
“LIGERS ARE STERILE? DEFINITELY NOT! This is one of the most fundamental questions about the ligers. Are the sterile? Can they reproduce? The answer is yes. Traditionally it was believed that ligers are sterile and they cannot give birth. But however, all went wrong when one of the female liger in the Munich zoo gave birth to a Li-Liger. It means father was a lion and the female was a liger.”